tv [untitled] June 10, 2011 11:00pm-11:30pm PDT
the sake of the public, level c and d on the slide, am i correct? >> yes. president olague: d and e during p.m. peak hours. is that more critical? >> d is considered acceptable. level of service e or f is considered failing. president olague: thank you for that. >> if i could have the overhead back, please? president olague: thanks. >> i did want to show a cumulative slide toward dulles the fact we studied traffic impacts of the 20/30 conditions, considering citywide growth and the impact in combination with
that growth. the previous intersections would be impacted by this project. it goes from level of service d which is acceptable, to level of service e, which means it fails and 2030. there are additional intersection sailing and 2030 project additional intersections failing and 2030. a word about transit impact. 2015 baseline conditions, the cathedral hill campus is expected to adversely impact several transit routes. and 2030, the cumulative impact, and addition to those three lines, it will at first lead in
fact -- it will adversely impact all their transit routes. we have an mta rep to talk to you about the mitigation measures to deal with this impact. before we get to that,e, wantd to cover the streetscape improvements. what this line a shelling, the blue box is the cathedral hill campus. the green is the tenderloin neighborhood and the lower pork corridor. that -- the lower polk corridor. during the draft review, we heard many comments that we needed to take a closer look at the tenderloin and transportation impact the
cathedral hill campus may have it in that neighborhood. i wanted to let you know we are doing that as part of the review and you will see what we do know today, the proposed project is going to add traffic to the tenderloin neighborhood and we are asking to have $11 million worth of improvements in this area. one of these improvements includes the conversion from one way to two way and that is shown in black dished lines. that came out of the study and that project is undergoing environmental review and will include various among other things along the polk corridor and tender loin area and things in the green box.
this is just a tool kit, an example of the kinds of things that would be done in the tender oin with this money. where we don't have the specifics, staff from several departments are working together with the community to figure that out as we speak. with that, i would like to introduce my colleague, jason lee, manager of financial services with m.t.a. to discuss with you the specifics of the transit mitigation. >> good afternoon. as victoria mentioned, the project is at the intersection of one of our -- two of our major transportation corridors in the city, geary and van ness. there are very heavily congested and the fortunate thing is that
this location is at an area of very high transit accessibility and that means there will be high transit impacts. currently eight routes stop within three blocks of the project site and what that means is that there are currently 120,000 people that board those eight routes on a daily basis or over 15% of the ridership. so we worked with cpmc and city staff to go through the e.i.r. and develop a cost and schedule module to develop the impacts of the campus on the services on a route-by-route basis and focused on transit delay, looking at the number of vehicle trips that
would be generated by cpmc and how it would slow down muni vehicles going through in that corridor surrounding cpmc. by slowing things down, that impacts everyone on board, their travel times. it requires muni to have to add service in order to same level of frequency that we can offer to our customers. we went through and we quantified how much each of these elements would cost in terms of addressing some of the delay issues both on the day-to-day operating and maintenance ex pen turs as well as capital expenditures as well as capital costs. if we had to purchase a new bus in order to maintain a schedule, that is included on the left-hand side. we went through that and came up
with an estimated cost of $2.59 million on a yearly basis and we also looked to give credit for offsetting some of those costs. the biggest one is -- we are proposing that if they help defray some of the costs of our van ness and geary projects that we would not account for the operation and maintenance costs due to the delay of services on van ness and geary. in addition, we looked at the net payroll tax and parking tax revenues that would be generated by the project. so, based on that, we calculated estimated offsets of $1.24 million annually for net annual financial impact of $1.35 million. based on that analysis, we are looking at three proposed
measures in combination that would help out with our transportation situation. one is, as i mentioned, we have two projects in the vicinity of the cpmc and one time contribution to help fund the stations, would go a long way in terms of making the vehicles on geary and van ness go faster, our muni vehicles. the second element is a parking fee that would be assessed. each time a person entered or exited cpmc's proposed parking garage and what we are proposing right now is a 50-cent fee to enter or exit the garage during weekday business hours and 25-cent fee to enter and exit other times of the day. if someone entered and exited on sunday, that would be 50 cents and these numbers would adjust
based on inflation. and finally, in conjunction with the city's transit-first policy, we were looking at having cpmc provide a muni fast pass to each employee that requests one and cpmc would be responsible for paying the face value of those passes which are either $60 for the muni-only pass or $75, muni plus bart and pay 60% of the total number of employees. and we are proposing that we would use the funding to offset some of the operating and capital expenditures associated with maintaining and improving transit, bicycle and pedestrian access along the corridors adjacent to the facility. and these corridors would be identified -- what we have
identified in our transit project. with that, i would like to turn it over to the t.a. rachel, who will talk about the specifics of the project. >> good evening. transportation planner with the san francisco transportation authority and i'm the project manager for the van ness project and geary project manager is also here. i would like to show you -- give you an overview of what b.r.t. is. this is visualization of the van ness b.r.t. project, one of the several alternatives under evaluation right now on van ness avenue. the geary and b.r.t. -- geary and van ness b.r.t. projects
were recommended in muni's vision plan back in 2000 and were recommended as the city's transportation expansion strategy in the 2004 county-wide transportation plan. the authority-led feasibility studies for these projects that were adopted in 2006 and with adoption of those feasibility studies, those boards recommended that the project concept and alternatives be environmentally assessed. right now geary and van ness alternatives are undergoing environmental review. both the geary and van ness projects include a couple core features and the purpose is to provide rapid transit, true rapid transit using rubber-tire vehicles on these two critical corridors that currently lack it. all alternatives do provide a dedicated lane for buses and
differentiated further from the current diamond lanes by colored pavement or by a small curve or other clear differentiation. all alternatives include high quality station platforms with level loading. passengers can load and unload the bus through any door and would be able to roll straight on if the passenger is in in a wheelchair or carrying a stroller. all alternatives include signal priority, which is technology that allows buses to extend the green light at traffic signals in order to reduce traffic signal delay. all the alternatives include new buses, large capacity buses, so articulated buses that have a particular look. so you will be able to know that this is a b.r.t. or rapid route. finally, because every transit
start or pedestrian trip, all alternatives invest in transit improvements. accessible pedestrian signals and countdown signals, curb extensions and new curb lamps. the geary and b.r.t. alternatives differ in their costs because they are different lengths, geary being a much longer corridor. both projects are eligible for federal funds, federal depunding program known as small start and it is a program designed for projects such as b.r.t., which are a lot cheaper per mile than conventional light rail or subway type of projects. both projects are eligible up to $75 million. van ness because we are currently along in our process has been acknowledged as a candidate for small start
funding by the federal government and been rated highly. in fact, the most competitive project for small start funding in the nation. we expect geary to do -- bid competitively for those funds. the funding includes the local property sales tax. the expenditure approved in 2003 identified a portion of the funds for van ness and geary b.r.t. the size of the remaining funding gap various again -- the total cost is $118. that ranges but that is the middle ground but for geary, no more than $250,000. this is a great shape for a project like van ness. 20% funding gap and we are only at the environmental stage of
the process. that project is in great shape financially but we still do have a gap and geary has a gap as well. the sources that we're seeking include an array of federal -- other federal programs, but those have to be matched as well as state programs. they have to be matched by local dollars. the implementation time frame for each project, again both projects are at the environmental review stage right now in neepa and ceqa environmental reviews. the time frame is shown on top and van ness on the bottom. we do expect the van ness b.r.t. project to circulate, state and federal process this year so maybe at the end of the summer going into the fall, later this
year, we will be circulating after we receive public comment. we at m.t.a. will recommend a preferred alternative for authority board and board adoption and work on the preferred alternative. the final design shown and the certification of the e.i.r. shown as the next phase depending on the corridor, geary is a much longer corridor so it will take longer time to get to implementationtation but would like to have service up and running by the end of 2015. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. if i could have the overhead, please. as we did for cathedral, i'm going to go through the circulation plan -- briefly,
circulation for the buildout is proposed to be as follows. patients would be dropped off and picked up from a new loading zone and with improvements. parking below the medical office building will be accessed from around the corner. we have the intersection in the top left corner, and the new hospital is slightly east of the street along chavez and medical building is on the corner of valencia. >> as i was mentioning, thening tering and exiting would necessitate the moving slightly southward of the existing bus
stop on valencia street. the existing park garage that duncan -- you can see it in the bottom -- center bottom of this plan, will remain and all circulation will be unchanged as part of the proposal. and ambulance and emergency pickup and dropoff will be accessed from 27th street. 27th street is the street that is curved around and becomes san jose in the center part of the plan. and freight access to the new hospital will be provided to the enclosed loading bay accessed from cesar chavez street. in terms of trip generation as we looked at it for cathedral hill, we anticipate 207 vehicle lar trips to and from the hospital and 271 transit trips.
lastly, in terms of the environmental analysis, the draft e.i.r. has found there will not be any significant impacts on any of the mobility indicators including transit. because this hospital is in a very -- is in a dens neighborhood, very residential, we have been asking for -- we have been working with project sponsors very closely over the last couple of years to include a series of streetscapes, public safety improvements to integrate the facility and be asking for these to be added into the development agreement. i'll go through the high level -- we will be looking at including pedestrian lighting
around the perimeter of the campus to provide safety for pedestrians, transit riders and others. we will be looking at sidewalk widening along cesar chavez street. ready to break ground there in a couple of -- and we will be asking for sidewalk improvements in addition to the streetscape plans. street trees and all that fun stuff -- and then the key corners to make pedestrians more visible and shortening crossings and really to make the fabric
here a little bit safer for people who choose to come by foot. we will be looking to include two small public space improvements, one at the intersection of duncan and valencia to regular larize a confusing intervehicles -- intersection. and greening and public space aments and other things. and on the lower left corner, that big blue dot, that is the existing pavement to parks project which p.m.c. funded as part of its initial trial run and we will be asking that that project be made permanent and a true capital project to the benefit of the community and really what it does also is provide some very important traffic -- traffic calming,
keeping cars from barreling through the neighborhood, which is pedestrian safety and neighborhood quality issue. and lastly, a couple of things. guerrero has an existing four-foot median that falls short of the actual crosswalk which can be a safety issue. so we would be asking the median to extend to the crosswalk to provide additional pedestrian safety due to the fact that many people will be coming to the hospital from slightly to the west. >> i wanted to thank the commission and audience for sitting through a long presentation, but we have to get
through a lot of things. if i could have the slides again. hopefully -- we inadvertently overlooked bicycle improvements and didn't intend to do that. we want to encourage the use of bicycling and to and between campuses. in conversations with the bicycle coalition and bicycle staff, we requested 400,000 for three planning studies, one to develop preferred routes between the campuses and recommend future physical improvements, another to design alternatives and this is just a study, not building anything at this point and third is traffic calming and this does connect the davies campus and 26 tfer street --
26th street. the last thing we wanted to present, you have been presented with the city's request. natural question to ask, how much does this all cost or how much is the value of the city's ask and i want to discuss how we suggest thinking about the dollar value. this is pretty high value and i'm sure before we are done we will have specific numbers. it's important to think about the request from the city in two distinct pieces. one-time commitments ties to the proposed development and continuing commitments which should be thought about in relation to the ongoing operations of all of the hospitals. the commitments are straightforward and you see them up on the screen here. we discussed them with you already today. total dollar asked is $108 million, which comes to 4.3% of
the total $2.5 billion development cost of the project. you have recently seen parkmerced. the community benefits came to 7% of the total gross construction costs of that project. continuing commitments are a little trickier to think about. to begin with and maybe most clearly and importantly, we don't believe it is particularly enlightening to multiply the annual costs of these ongoing commitments by any large numbers of years -- president olague: i wanted to inform folks that are standing up and have been for quite some time that room 416 is set up as the overflow room. so if you can start making your way over there. and we'll wait for about -- just a couple of minutes, because it's actually being televised in
that room. once an overflow room is set up, folks who are standing are required to go to that room. and if you are part of a 10-minute presentation, we'll call you and make sure that you have time to come over here. yes. >> all of these that are sitting along the far side of the room under the monitors, they will need to go to the overflow also. president olague: with the exception of staff. and i recognize a staff member sitting on the floor. everyone else needs to go to the overflow room.
raise your hand. ok, i think we are ready. >> if i could have the slides again, please. the continuing commitments are a little trickier to think about. to begin with and maybe more clearly and importantly, we don't believe it is particularly enlightening to multiply the costs of these ongoing commitments by the number of years, namely 50. it's to what the city is asking cpmc to do in one year compared to both what other hospitals are doing in one year and compared to the size of cpmc's operations in san francisco for one year because the important conversation is what are they asking us to do every year, not multi-- multiplying and how many patients they serve. you see these numbers on the screen. the important point for now that we would like to emphasize is
that the vast majority is made up of fair share requests. you see the pie up above and the majority of the city is related to those two subjects. so that concludes the staff presentation. what i would like to suggest if it's ok with the commission and the chair is that we take questions from the transportation and workforce staff who need to leave early and have cpmc respond or if you would like to, reverse those. we'll take cpmc next. president olague: we can ask the questions of the folks and open it up for public comment.